Trustee Candidates Clash on Open-Government, Budget, Flint Park

by Judy Silberstein and Paula Eisenberg

(March 11, 2003) Open government, the budget surplus, Flint Park, zoning and the Greenway: candidates for Larchmont Village Board of Trustees discussed, debated and clashed over these and other issues at last night’s League of Women Voters forum. One-year incumbent Mike Wiener and political newcomer Phil Johanson are running on the Republican, Independence and Village Partnership lines against Anne McAndrews and Geoff Young, who both served as Trustees in the past and are running on the Democratic and Larchmont Coalition lines.

OPEN PROCESS

The overriding theme throughout the night was the “open process” with the Republicans claiming that the current Board - with a 4-1 Republican majority - was both accessible and open, and the Democrats challenging whether the Board was being inclusive and respectful of the Open Meetings Law during its budget deliberations, Flint Park redesign meetings, zoning study or Saturday “board hours.”

While discussing the Village budget, McAndrews commented, "The Democratic candidates are at a severe disadvantage here, because we haven't really seen the budget.” She continued, “I really, really think we should put together two things: open government and a straightforward approach to this budget process." On Flint Park, she suggested bringing together all the stakeholders to speak with the Board and each other, rather than restricting the early process to a subset of interested groups. She expressed disappointment that environmental considerations had not been given sufficient attention in the current planning process and, like her running-mate, was “disheartened” to learn that her opponents had not taken time to participate in interviews with the Gazette, which she found to be challenging and an opportunity.

Young was even more pointed in his criticism. He described how at the end of ten hours of budget meetings, “There was a request from the Mayor that we not talk about these outside this room - almost like a gag order. I didn’t agree to it. I don’t believe that’s open government. I think that’s wrong.” On the zoning study, he said, “I was told the Mayor said I could not have a copy.” On Flint Park, he picked up on Wiener’s comments about failures in the plans. “You’ve heard it – there are major failures with the plans. Why? …We need to include more people in the process earlier on so there are not major failures in plans that have cost our Village tax dollars to design and that are now being taken apart.” Among the failures, he noted was the lack of attention to waterfront access. “For a waterfront community we don’t have much waterfront access.”

Wiener noted that open government means accessibility to the people. “That’s why (Saturday) office hours were put in,” he stressed. “That’s why all these meetings are being held.” He went on to list other recent improvements including: moving people who wish to address the board to the beginning of the board agenda, ceasing to publish newsletters near to election season in order to avoid the appearance of partisanship, and requiring public hearing and notice before votes on items costing over $500. He also noted, “I wonder when we have these meetings they are so sparsely attended, even by candidates at this dais.” On the Flint Park plans, he stressed that the plans are still in the early stages and are in flux. He listed the numerous groups involved, which include over 90 individuals, and stressed there would be plenty of opportunity for community reaction before any plans are adopted. On the question of access to the media, Wiener regretted that he did not have time to participate in the interview that had not been scheduled when the Gazette first outlined its process.“My first allegiance is to the Village government, then it was toward campaigning.”

Johanson supported the current administration and board. “I couldn’t imagine a more open board…. Every meeting is announced.” He pointed out that the budget meetings in question were merely reviewing budget requests, “There is no budget yet. There is a tentative budget that will be released next week… When it is, it will be available.” On Flint Park, he said, “Let’s have an open and effective process. Bringing together a room of three or four hundred people is not an effective way to go about any process.” On media access, he noted the many hours he and Wiener have devoted to campaigning and commented, “Your time is basically gone in a campaign.”

BUDGET

Beyond process, the candidates agreed that the Village was facing increases in a number of important budget categories, but they disagreed on what they would do with the Village’s $2.5 million surplus.

Johanson, a two-year member of the budget committee, said, “At the local level we're in darned good shape. I don't know that we need to be cutting any services in the Village in order to come in with a very reasonable tax increase. We have a $2.5 million surplus on a $10.5-$11 million operating budget. Using some of that surplus, not storing it, is a good idea." He continued, “Moody's, who does our bond rating, says this in their guide: 'Moody's likes to see a general fund balance sufficient to address normal contingencies, typically between 5-10% of annual revenues.' You do the math."

Wiener agreed, “ No one is planning on reducing services. The question is how to provide for them, and there are sharp differences of opinion.” In his view, the reserve is the result of appropriate, conservative revenue practices. “We underestimate our revenues and overestimate our expenses: there goes the surplus.” Wiener predicted that the reserve will be back at what it was the previous year, despite having used some last year to lower the tax rate. “We have good, sound practices going on now.”

Young argued, “The surplus isn't there to maintain services on an operating, annual basis. It's there for unexpected emergencies, as an asset, just as a park is there. We should protect it and pay as we go along.” He said he would not rely on a 5 or 10% surplus for his own, personal budget.

McAndrews disagreed with Johanson and further warned, “If we let the surplus drop precipitously in order to have an unrealistically low tax increase, we could possibly lose the top bond rating, which allows us to borrow money at the lowest possible rate." She was not against using the surplus, and had voted to do so during her term on the Board; however she was against using the surplus merely to lower the tax rate. Maintaining the surplus would allow the Village to take advantage of opportunities, such as purchasing open space if any should become available.

The candidates also clashed on zoning, with the Republicans supporting the current process and the moratorium on variances, which they said also had support from all the land use boards and commissions, and the Democrats criticizing it as creating hardships for some owners attempting to sell homes and for being applied before the Board identified the specific problem to be solved.

Another split involved support for the Greenway, a program initiated by the Hudson River Conservancy to promote collaboration on environmental issues. Both Democrats were emphatically in favor of Larchmont immediately joining the Greenway, which the Town and Village of Mamaroneck have already joined. This would not preclude participation in programs focused on the Sound. Both Republicans favored allowing the newly-formed Village environmental committee to continue studying the benefits of the Greenway. They would prefer a program that paid greater attention to the Sound Shore, and suggested the possibility of putting together a “Soundway” system of waterfront trails.

BEFORE VOTING CHECK: Gazette Political Page

In the last remaining days before the Tuesday, March 18 election day, the candidates will be continuing to “walk the Village” to reach voters and encourage their supporters to show up at the polls. Check: Election 2003 for complete information on the candidates’ backgrounds and positions. Participate in the Poll: “Are You Voting on Tuesday?” or the Forum.

Also check back with the Gazette Tuesday evening after the close of polls at 9 pm. The Gazette will post election results as soon as they become available.